Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-12-10
MR.. coMsToCK AND NUDITY IN ART.

In another column we print letter
from Mr. Anthony Comstock, of New
York, Secretary of the Society for the Sup
preston Of Vice The matter discussed
by Mr.. Comstock relates to a criticism in
lulged in bv the REcoRD-UNIoN upon his
act in prosecuting Knoedler, a picture
dealer, for exhibiting photographs of works
Of art shown in European galleries. Mr.
Comstock explains the matter in way TO
impress us with the belief that the entire
truth has not been given to the people con-
corning the affair of the arrest. We gather
from Mr.. ComstJcK's letter that not the
photographs of Salon pictures were shown,
but parts of pictures, single figures, ETC.,
and that these, taken out of their proper
atmosphere, became very different in char
acter and in their effect upon the mind
when exposed to view upon the street. We
invite attention TO Mr.. Comstocl's letter
1t is manly and vigorous. We have for so
many years taken pleasure in commenting
his work, and in approving his philan-
shropic purposes, that it was with more
than regret we were led to believe by
statements OF Eastern Journals that in this
case of the photographs Mr.. Comstock had
erred, and the impression is not wholly re-
moved We have understood here that
the Court of Appeals did not pass upon
the obscenity of the pictures, and that
they were not and could not have been be-
fore that Court. A jury, We were told,
had, indeed, judged the pictures, but
the press of New York aSsailed the verdict
on the ground of the incompetency of the
average criminal jury to pass upon such
questions. We had understood that, in
fact, the pictures were not looked upon by
the people as lewd until the Society Mr.
Comstock represents had Knoedler ar
rested. If this is true, then Mr.. Com
stocks pursuit of Knoedler only advertised
his wares. Unquestionably there is that
shown annually in the Salon which, repio-
duced by photography, or other method of
transfer, would be unfit for the eye of
youth-very muchs is hown there which the
mass of clean-thinking people would pro-
nounce lewd. But we are to consider that
in this matter something is to be conceded
to the demands of art, and that the tastes
of a very large class Of people cannot be
ignored. 1t may be that we must
make our selection between endur-
ing the nudity OF the Paris
Salon, and giving its reproduction
such publicity as will make it the more
sought after. The question Of inpurity in
art works is an old one, and never will be
settled. Communities will forever divide
in opinion upon it, ard therefore it is
questionable il the objects which create
the division come properly within the
scope OF the work OF the society whose
agent Mr.. Comstock is. He and the society
have done so much in the interest of good
morals, have had such grand support by
The public and the field for their activity
IS so broad-almost boundless-that it is
with sincere regret We see any issue
raised likely to divide the support and di-
minish the usefulness Of the New York
association We admit Mr.. Comstocks
point, that when reproduction of famous
pictures is so done as 10 suggest only leTd
ness, ana to appeal only to the passions,
then it is 4 fit subject for assault. But
whether Mr.. Comstock's society, which is
such powerful agency for good, can afford
20 cripple It's efforts, and divert its energies
by fighting an adverse sentiment to his, or
his Directors ideas as to the boundary be-
tween the permissible and the intolerable
in art, is a matter upon which we have
very little doubt. II, however, the society
can see its way clear to achieve victory, no
one will more heartily wish it success than
the RECoRD-USION